Bouvier 2004.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Inclusion/exclusion criteria NR. The study included 35 patients operated on or biopsied at the Department of Neurosurgery (la Timone hospital, Marseille) between June and December 2001. This included (quote) "one grade III astrocytoma, 14 glioblastomas, 10 oligodendrogliomas (five grades II and III) and four mixed oligoastrocytomas (three grade II and one grade III). One oligodendroglioma grade II was reclassified as gliomatosis after neuroimaging review. Five cortectomies for epilepsy were used as controls". Prior testing Histopathological diagnosis according to the WHO classification (version not specified).
Patient characteristics and setting	Number of participants/tumours with results for 1p/19q status by ≥ 2 DNA‐based tests: 14 Country: France Population source and setting: Department of Neurosurgery, la Timone hospital, Marseille, France. June to December 2001 Age: NR Gender: NR Karnofsky performance status: NR First diagnosis/recurrent disease: NR
Index tests	2 tests: FISH and PCR FISH Tumour sample type: frozen smear Region(s) analysed: 1p36.33 vs 1q12; 19q13.3 vs 19p13.2 Cut‐off: NR PCR Tumour sample type: frozen Region(s) analysed: 1p36.23 (D1S1612), 1p34.2 (D1S447), 1p13.3 (D1S252) and on 19q13.32 (D19S412 and D19S219), 19p13.12 (D19S226). Cut‐off: LOH was scored when signal intensity was < 0.5 or > 2 in a tumour sample.
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition was absolute 1p/19q deletion. FISH or PCR‐based LOH used as reference standard in some of our analyses.
Flow and timing	We presumed that all tests were performed on biopsied tumour material collected on 1 occasion.
Comparative
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Yes
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NanoString)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (aCGH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (G‐banding)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 4))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SNP array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (with comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (without comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CISH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (RFLP)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR‐based LOH)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Unclear
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS or aCGH (or both))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Methylation array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Unclear
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 1))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 2))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 3))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Real‐time PCR)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MLPA)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CGH)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		High risk